1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to a method of manufacturing and assembling computers from a plurality of individual components where the compatibility of each component is identified by its shape and to a method for building a computer having no general purpose operating system.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Compatibility among components in a computer system represents a significant problem in the personal computer industry. Many consumers purchase new parts for their computers in an attempt to improve performance or to provide additional features, only to discover that the newly purchased component cannot be added to their existing system. Visual inspection of the new components is of little value because the known components lack distinctive design features. An incompatible component may disable the operability of other programs, the operating system, or even physically damage other hardware.
Another problem of non-distinct components is that many component manufacturers are at the mercy of larger computer assemblers. Most name brand computer companies are mere assemblers; they manufacture no components whatsoever. The manufacturers of components are at the mercy of such assemblers because the component manufacturers lack the means to sell their components directly to consumers. There have been cases where advanced components were withheld from the market for up to a year or more by computer assemblers who want to sell their inventory of computers with old components before allowing the public to have access to the improved components. Such practice damages the public's access to new technologies as well as the component manufacturers' ability to offer new technologies to consumers.
Thus, a need exists for a method that enables component manufacturers to sell their components directly to the public without the interference of computer assemblers.
Another very significant limitation of today's personal computer industry is its reliance upon central processing unit (CPU) architecture. Such architecture requires a single CPU to handle all processing demands and an operating system to manage the resources of the CPU. As new software applications are added, the operating system is changed and often degraded, with the result that earlier applications perform at a reduced level of effectiveness. Thus, as a user purchases and installs more and more software applications, the burden on the CPU increases and processing times slow down, and the entire system becomes less stable. The user can even lose the ability to run old software when the operating system of the computer is upgraded.
By way of analogy, if upgrading a home entertainment center by adding a DVD player were to cause the loss of a graphic equalizer or other component and to degrade the overall sound quality of the system, consumers would not accept such technology. Consumers are forced to accept degraded performance, lost functions and frequent crashes as being an inherent, unavoidable part of currently available computer systems due to the lack of an alternative to CPU architecture or paradigm.
Dedicated or specific function computers having their own operating systems operate much faster than general function computers with one-size-fits-all operating systems. For example, a Nintendo 64.RTM. game has its own dedicated 64-bit processor and its own operating system.
The interaction between software applications and computer hardware is complex and often unstable. Accordingly, computer systems that rely upon generic operating systems are subject to frequent crashing and the concomitant loss of data. A user of such a system must develop, at considerable expense, a back-up system to restore data after a crash.
A computer system where each application would have its own dedicated hardware and software is significantly faster and more reliable than a CPU "box" computer that must compromise performance and stability by sharing system resources among many applications. The CPU paradigm that dominates the computer industry has resulted in a monolithic "box" design that causes computers of differing ages, capability and price to look the same. Moreover, the well-known box design raises the upgrade threshold because the industry must make obsolete the entire contents of the box before consumers will feel compelled to upgrade. In other words, a consumer will be reluctant to purchase an entirely new computer system just to get a better modem. Only when all or most of the components have been made obsolete will the typical consumer relent and purchase an entirely new system.
Unfortunately, when a general purpose operating system is upgraded, many older software applications become obsolete, forcing consumers to re-purchase upgraded versions of applications. If the automotive industry were to manufacture cars that looked the same every year, but occasionally were provided with different engines that required different fuels, making all previous engines and fuels obsolete, consumers would not accept such practice. The computer industry gets away with such practice only because computer consumers have no alternative computer systems available to them.
However, in view of the art considered as a whole at the time the present invention was made, it was not obvious to those of ordinary skill in this art how to overcome the compatibility and operating system limitations of commercially-available personal computer systems.